If VAR cannot make its mind up after 20 seconds, the on-field decision stands.
20 is probably too short, they might only see one proper reply in that time and need another angle. I do agree there needs to be some form of cut off though, maybe 1 minute max.
If VAR cannot make its mind up after 20 seconds, the on-field decision stands.
20 is probably too short, they might only see one proper reply in that time and need another angle. I do agree there needs to be some form of cut off though, maybe 1 minute max.
10 seconds is enough of something is clear and obvious which is what it was supposed to be used for in the first place - drawing lines and analysing from different angles is where it’s all gone wrong
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
The dark arts wind me up ! I think if a player is cautioned for a cynical foul which stops a promising attack, resulting in the victim of the tackle needing treatment and has to goto the sideline, then I think the player making the tackle should go off the field of play too (until the players ready to return or a substitution is made).
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
Yes I bloody well would. Nobody gets hanged because the ref made a bad decision. And ultimately the real world isn't as cut an dried as some would like to imagine. You can keep using increasingly sophisticated equipment to bore down deeper to the nth degree, but ultimately a football pitch is like a fractal, just when you think you've got to grips with it, there's a whole new level. At some point it's better to say, let's stop fannying around and actually get on with the game.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
I already answered in my post - yes.
When a cricket team uses up their last review and then miss out on a wicket later on that they could have reviewed - the umpire isn't getting hung drawn and quartered from it - that's just part of the game now.
I'm simply saying introduce a 30 second timer, if VAR can't get to the bottom of it in that time, it's not a clear and obvious error and the call should be it's inconclusive, and the on field decision stands. Yeah you will get some marginal calls wrong, but as I said we already live with tons of marginal calls that VAR don't look at already, it's just part of the game.
Revert the rule back to when a ball goes out for a goal kick the goalie takes the goal kick from the side it went off at, it is now a time wasting tactic for the goalie to go to the opposite side (slowly) to take the goal kick from there.
Also, there needs to be a stop for the goalie slumping onto the ball for an eternity towards the end of the game to again time waste.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
I already answered in my post - yes.
When a cricket team uses up their last review and then miss out on a wicket later on that they could have reviewed - the umpire isn't getting hung drawn and quartered from it - that's just part of the game now.
I'm simply saying introduce a 30 second timer, if VAR can't get to the bottom of it in that time, it's not a clear and obvious error and the call should be it's inconclusive, and the on field decision stands. Yeah you will get some marginal calls wrong, but as I said we already live with tons of marginal calls that VAR don't look at already, it's just part of the game.
It's an interesting view and I can't say I agree with it. If VAR is intended to ensure there are fewer critical errors, then why would you stay with the referee's mistake after reviewing it for 30 seconds, when you know, after 31 seconds, it's a howler?
In my view you either go with the referee's decision "because it's a game played by fallible humans and refereed by fallible humans", or you use as much technology as is required to get the decision right.
Introducing technology and then legislating for when it must not be used seems a really weird compromise.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
Yes I bloody well would. Nobody gets hanged because the ref made a bad decision. And ultimately the real world isn't as cut an dried as some would like to imagine. You can keep using increasingly sophisticated equipment to bore down deeper to the nth degree, but ultimately a football pitch is like a fractal, just when you think you've got to grips with it, there's a whole new level. At some point it's better to say, let's stop fannying around and actually get on with the game.
It's the arbitrary decision on when the fannying around must stop that ruins the argument.
Let's agree that the technology and the numerous reviews aren't being used for any other reason than to get the decision right. No-one spends additional time reviewing decisions just for the giggles - they're all working as accurately and quickly as they can. If you then draw a specific timespan for them to come up with their decision, you risk two things:
First, the VAR team will either "guess" the decision within the time limit (which would be terrible); or they make no decision and risk being shown to be wrong a second or two later, probably before the resulting restart has been taken (to extend this further, the referee may have to caution a player for not restarting a game from a decision which everyone on the pitch and in the crowd knows is wrong).
Second, we risk having to have a review system to check whether the decision has been made within the time limit. Someone with a stop watch, checking whether the time limit has been reached. And then, perhaps someone checking whether the time limit judge started his watch in time. Eventually it will be turtles all the way down...
One thing that always winds me up, although i accept it when its us doing it, is when a defender shields a ball for a goal kick and makes no attempt to play the ball or the ball is taken to the corner and the player doesn't touch the ball just shields the defender away (what Tony Watt done was fine). I understand why its done but if it happened anywhere else of the pitch it would be a foul, still probably wouldnt change it
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
I already answered in my post - yes.
When a cricket team uses up their last review and then miss out on a wicket later on that they could have reviewed - the umpire isn't getting hung drawn and quartered from it - that's just part of the game now.
I'm simply saying introduce a 30 second timer, if VAR can't get to the bottom of it in that time, it's not a clear and obvious error and the call should be it's inconclusive, and the on field decision stands. Yeah you will get some marginal calls wrong, but as I said we already live with tons of marginal calls that VAR don't look at already, it's just part of the game.
Introducing technology and then legislating for when it must not be used seems a really weird compromise.
But that’s exactly what happens now. Imagine having VAR delays for every set piece, tackle etc.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
I already answered in my post - yes.
When a cricket team uses up their last review and then miss out on a wicket later on that they could have reviewed - the umpire isn't getting hung drawn and quartered from it - that's just part of the game now.
I'm simply saying introduce a 30 second timer, if VAR can't get to the bottom of it in that time, it's not a clear and obvious error and the call should be it's inconclusive, and the on field decision stands. Yeah you will get some marginal calls wrong, but as I said we already live with tons of marginal calls that VAR don't look at already, it's just part of the game.
Introducing technology and then legislating for when it must not be used seems a really weird compromise.
But that’s exactly what happens now. Imagine having VAR delays for every set piece, tackle etc.
Throw it in the bin.
Agreed, not against technology for example goal line technology is fine and has improved the game but VAR causes more headlines than its worth
One thing that annoys me is red cards being overturned after games. It never seems to be for the smaller teams, although that might just be my perception. Arsenal Wolves the other week and wolves break from a corner. The arsenal lad took the wolves player out and was rightly red carded in my opinion. It wasn't just a trip or a shirt pull it was a reckless and nasty tackle that could have injured the player. Ref thought it was a red, VAR agreed and didn't intervene, but shearer, lineker, arteta and a few others were up in arms, although I couldn't see why? Result. Downgraded to a yellow and the player is available for the next game. You just know wolves would never have got the same decision if they'd appealed something similar!
No pass backs to the keeper from your opponents half. Penalty for doing this would be a corner kick or a free kick from where the pass back was played from. This would encourage players to play and prevent time wasting.
No back passes into the penalty area in added on time.
A european pool of referees for each countries top tier division so all leagues are playing to the same interpretation of the rules.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
Yes I bloody well would. Nobody gets hanged because the ref made a bad decision. And ultimately the real world isn't as cut an dried as some would like to imagine. You can keep using increasingly sophisticated equipment to bore down deeper to the nth degree, but ultimately a football pitch is like a fractal, just when you think you've got to grips with it, there's a whole new level. At some point it's better to say, let's stop fannying around and actually get on with the game.
It's the arbitrary decision on when the fannying around must stop that ruins the argument.
Let's agree that the technology and the numerous reviews aren't being used for any other reason than to get the decision right. No-one spends additional time reviewing decisions just for the giggles - they're all working as accurately and quickly as they can. If you then draw a specific timespan for them to come up with their decision, you risk two things:
First, the VAR team will either "guess" the decision within the time limit (which would be terrible); or they make no decision and risk being shown to be wrong a second or two later, probably before the resulting restart has been taken (to extend this further, the referee may have to caution a player for not restarting a game from a decision which everyone on the pitch and in the crowd knows is wrong).
Second, we risk having to have a review system to check whether the decision has been made within the time limit. Someone with a stop watch, checking whether the time limit has been reached. And then, perhaps someone checking whether the time limit judge started his watch in time. Eventually it will be turtles all the way down...
Without wanting to go round in circles, the point is that it doesn't take long to establish it 'isn't a clear and obvious error', as opposed to an error. 2 foot over the goal line and previously there was no recourse if the referee and linesman were unsighted. Now there is.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
Yes I bloody well would. Nobody gets hanged because the ref made a bad decision. And ultimately the real world isn't as cut an dried as some would like to imagine. You can keep using increasingly sophisticated equipment to bore down deeper to the nth degree, but ultimately a football pitch is like a fractal, just when you think you've got to grips with it, there's a whole new level. At some point it's better to say, let's stop fannying around and actually get on with the game.
It's the arbitrary decision on when the fannying around must stop that ruins the argument.
Let's agree that the technology and the numerous reviews aren't being used for any other reason than to get the decision right. No-one spends additional time reviewing decisions just for the giggles - they're all working as accurately and quickly as they can. If you then draw a specific timespan for them to come up with their decision, you risk two things:
First, the VAR team will either "guess" the decision within the time limit (which would be terrible); or they make no decision and risk being shown to be wrong a second or two later, probably before the resulting restart has been taken (to extend this further, the referee may have to caution a player for not restarting a game from a decision which everyone on the pitch and in the crowd knows is wrong).
Second, we risk having to have a review system to check whether the decision has been made within the time limit. Someone with a stop watch, checking whether the time limit has been reached. And then, perhaps someone checking whether the time limit judge started his watch in time. Eventually it will be turtles all the way down...
Without wanting to go round in circles, the point is that it doesn't take long to establish it 'isn't a clear and obvious error', as opposed to an error. 2 foot over the goal line and previously there was no recourse if the referee and linesman were unsighted. Now there is.
I'd also make the point that there are plenty of clear and obvious errors that VAR COULD clear up with barely even the need for a replay - how many times have we seen a player punt it out of play and the ref thinks it takes a touch off a defender but everyone else in the stadium knows it hasn't, let alone the people watching on the monitor. But they don't touch those. But we are happy to live with those kinds of errors every single week yet when it comes to a goal we have to wait for every possible angle, frame by frame, lines drawn all over the place and a ton of procrastination. If that was what VAR was presented to us as being for when it was brought in then fair enough but it wasn't.
Its morphed into a crutch rather than a tool for refs and linos IMO.
I don't believe a timer would lead to rushed decisions if there was the option of saying "no sorry, this isn't clear and obvious so this is beyond VARs remit - on field decision stands" In fact I think it would lead to less VAR intervention overall and would stop it being used for contentious close calls and opinion calls because that was never VARs job; that is the refs job to decide and always has been. It was supposed to be about the egregious, glaringly obvious mistakes not the marginal ones.
So it seems that a few people would prefer quick, wrong decisions
I'd just like the technology to be used for what they said it would be used for; clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics and takes a number of minutes on millimeter decisions or a brush of a toe then it isn't.
So, if it takes multiple viewings of a replay or additional graphics to prove the referee made a mistake, we should stick with the referee's decision?
If it's not clear and obvious, which, if they need that much and lengthy analysis it wouldn't be would it? Then yes I can live with the on field decision, just like I do with the multiple others that are messed up throughout the course of a normal game that VAR doesn't intervene for. That was what VAR was sold to people as being about, clear and obvious errors. Refs will always make mistakes, how many throw ins, corners are incorrectly given/not given at every ground in the country each week? Fouls that weren't really fouls given - even booked players for them! Blatant fouls missed. We live with those though don't we and they can be just a match defining/changing.
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
To the specific point though, you'd be happy to stick with an incorrect decision made by the referee which couldn't be determined with two angles, but could with a third?
Yes I bloody well would. Nobody gets hanged because the ref made a bad decision. And ultimately the real world isn't as cut an dried as some would like to imagine. You can keep using increasingly sophisticated equipment to bore down deeper to the nth degree, but ultimately a football pitch is like a fractal, just when you think you've got to grips with it, there's a whole new level. At some point it's better to say, let's stop fannying around and actually get on with the game.
It's the arbitrary decision on when the fannying around must stop that ruins the argument.
Let's agree that the technology and the numerous reviews aren't being used for any other reason than to get the decision right. No-one spends additional time reviewing decisions just for the giggles - they're all working as accurately and quickly as they can. If you then draw a specific timespan for them to come up with their decision, you risk two things:
First, the VAR team will either "guess" the decision within the time limit (which would be terrible); or they make no decision and risk being shown to be wrong a second or two later, probably before the resulting restart has been taken (to extend this further, the referee may have to caution a player for not restarting a game from a decision which everyone on the pitch and in the crowd knows is wrong).
Second, we risk having to have a review system to check whether the decision has been made within the time limit. Someone with a stop watch, checking whether the time limit has been reached. And then, perhaps someone checking whether the time limit judge started his watch in time. Eventually it will be turtles all the way down...
The ref is in control of time keeping in a football match and that should not change, that's why he has a watch on his wrist - he gets a word in his shell like - "hold on we are checking something" - ref "okay 30 seconds off you go" The ref is the overall arbiter of the rules in all aspects of the game from start to finish, including VAR. The ref is the perfect person for this "time limit judge" role because he already does it.
People don't sit there with stop watches checking whether the ref has added the exactly correct amount of injury time every game and there isn't a massive inquest when the ref doesn't play the exact amount of time advertised either - again, we live with that every single week don't we.
Whatever happened to the idea that players can’t surround the ref? At least 5 Man U players getting in his face at the Everton game when he gave the penno. Apparently they’re not bothered about that anymore. They made a bit of a point of enforcing it for a few games, then it’s disappeared. Same with the goalie 6 second rule and actually adding on enough time to account for time wasted in the game.
Biggest thing I’d change in football laws is that they follow through and stick with the rules they introduce.
Comments
If the ref misses a clear elbow by a player whilst his back is turned or view impeded - someone is a foot offside and scores but the lino misses it? There's a foul in the box but the ref hasn't kept up with play and thinks it was outside? Mistaken identity bookings? Those are the infuriating ones that VAR should be handling, and are decisions that take seconds and one or at max two replays to establish - I can take a marginal offside call going against us but i'd be fuming if a clear stamp on our player for example got missed and that is what VAR should be (and was SUPPOSED to be) brought in to deal with.
When a cricket team uses up their last review and then miss out on a wicket later on that they could have reviewed - the umpire isn't getting hung drawn and quartered from it - that's just part of the game now.
I'm simply saying introduce a 30 second timer, if VAR can't get to the bottom of it in that time, it's not a clear and obvious error and the call should be it's inconclusive, and the on field decision stands. Yeah you will get some marginal calls wrong, but as I said we already live with tons of marginal calls that VAR don't look at already, it's just part of the game.
In my view you either go with the referee's decision "because it's a game played by fallible humans and refereed by fallible humans", or you use as much technology as is required to get the decision right.
Introducing technology and then legislating for when it must not be used seems a really weird compromise.
Let's agree that the technology and the numerous reviews aren't being used for any other reason than to get the decision right. No-one spends additional time reviewing decisions just for the giggles - they're all working as accurately and quickly as they can. If you then draw a specific timespan for them to come up with their decision, you risk two things:
First, the VAR team will either "guess" the decision within the time limit (which would be terrible); or they make no decision and risk being shown to be wrong a second or two later, probably before the resulting restart has been taken (to extend this further, the referee may have to caution a player for not restarting a game from a decision which everyone on the pitch and in the crowd knows is wrong).
Second, we risk having to have a review system to check whether the decision has been made within the time limit. Someone with a stop watch, checking whether the time limit has been reached. And then, perhaps someone checking whether the time limit judge started his watch in time. Eventually it will be turtles all the way down...
Throw it in the bin.
A european pool of referees for each countries top tier division so all leagues are playing to the same interpretation of the rules.
Its morphed into a crutch rather than a tool for refs and linos IMO.
I don't believe a timer would lead to rushed decisions if there was the option of saying "no sorry, this isn't clear and obvious so this is beyond VARs remit - on field decision stands" In fact I think it would lead to less VAR intervention overall and would stop it being used for contentious close calls and opinion calls because that was never VARs job; that is the refs job to decide and always has been. It was supposed to be about the egregious, glaringly obvious mistakes not the marginal ones.
People don't sit there with stop watches checking whether the ref has added the exactly correct amount of injury time every game and there isn't a massive inquest when the ref doesn't play the exact amount of time advertised either - again, we live with that every single week don't we.
Biggest thing I’d change in football laws is that they follow through and stick with the rules they introduce.